Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bhopal Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 April, 2014

Bench: Hemant Gupta, Fateh Deep Singh

            CWP No.7745 of 2014                                      1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH


                                                                  CWP No.7745 of 2014
                                                           Date of Decision: 25.04.2014.

            Bhopal Singh and another
                                                                     ..... PETITIONERS
                                             VERSUS

            State of Haryana and others

                                                                   ..... RESPONDENTS

            PRESENT: -         Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate
                               for the petitioners.


            CORAM:             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
                               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH


            HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral)

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh on 30.08.2013 (Annexure P-8) dismissing revision directed against the order passed by the Commissioner on 28.08.2008 (Annexure P-5) and the order passed by the Collector on 21.02.2006 (Annexure P-2).

The petitioners filed a petition under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') praying that the mutation sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat consequent to insertion by way of the amendment in Section 2(g) of the Act by virtue of Act No.9 of 1992 be set aside. The said petition has been dismissed as per the orders mentioned above.

The petitioners claim to be in possession of land Jyoti 2014.04.29 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.7745 of 2014 2 measuring 164 kanal 6 marla as proprietors. It is alleged that the said land is Jumla Malkhan Hasab Rasad khewat since the time of consolidation and that the petitioners are in cultivating possession of such land not exceeding their share in the land holding and that the Gram Panchayat has no right or concern with this land. The stand of the Gram Panchayat is that the land is described in the revenue record as banjar kadeem and is being used for grazing of cattle.

The learned Collector held that the land is reserved for common purposes at the time of consolidation and thus is shamlat deh in terms of Section 2(g) (6) of the Act and vests with panchayat. It is the said order which was affirmed by the Commissioner and later by the Financial Commissioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the claim of the petitioners was restricted to set aside the mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners have not sought the settlement of dispute regarding title in their petition under Section 13-A of the Act. We find the argument to be wholly untenable. The mutation are not the documents of title. Such proposition is beyond any dispute. The revenue records including mutation are maintained for fiscal purposes alone so as to determine the liability of payment of land revenue. The cancellation of the mutation was the ultimate relief but it was based on the assertion of the fact that the petitioners are in continuous possession of land being proprietors. Neither the petitioners have proved their possession prior to 26.01.1950 which alone would protect the possession under exception (viii) to Section 2(g) of the Act.

2014.04.29 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.7745 of 2014 3

The land described in the revenue record is Jumla Mustarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Khewat and reserved for common purposes vest with panchayat in terms of Section 2(g)(6) of the Act. The said vires of the amending Act has been upheld by Full Bench judgment in case of Jai Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2003(2) PLR 658.

The other argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that the Sarpanch has admitted that the land has not been used by the Panchayat nor leased by the panchayat. Mere fact that the panchayat is not able to use the land reserved for common purposes during the consolidation proceedings will not deprive the vesting of land in the panchayat. The part of the land has found to be a public passage as also pond whereas remaining land has been found to be reserved for grazing purposes.

In view of the finding recorded that the land in question vest with Panchayat, We do not find any reason to interfere in the orders passed in the writ jurisdiction of this court. The writ petition stands dismissed.

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (FATEH DEEP SINGH) JUDGE April 25, 2014 jt Jyoti 2014.04.29 15:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh